Monday, July 30, 2012

NUMBER OF PRIESTS NOT ANSWERING THE TWO QUESTIONS INCREASES

Fr. Tim Finigan (Southwark, England), Fr. John George (Sydney), Fr.Joe Jenkins (Washington) will not respond to the two questions(1).

They will not answer these two questions on their blog while they are willing to discuss the Society of St.Pius  X issue.

They will say the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 said that the baptism of desire was an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma. When asked if the baptism of desire can be an exception to the dogma they don’t answer. Was the baptism of desire irrelevant to the dogma? No answer. Can you name someone saved with the baptism of desire? No answer.Did the Holy Office make a mistake? No answer.

 If the Vatican spokesman would clarify that there is no baptism of desire that we know of we are back to the literal interpretation of  extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Vatican Council II does not contradict the SSPX communiqué on outside the church there is no salvation.-Lionel Andrades

1.

1) Do we personally know the dead saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc ?

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

CAN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON AND WASHINGTON SUPPORT THE SSPX BY SAYING VATICAN COUNCIL II IS A TRADITIONAL DOCUMENT WITH TRADITIONAL VALUES?


The SSPX communiqué indicates they are willing to accept a Vatican Council II in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and traditional values arising from this doctrinal position.

Cardinal Sean O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston and personnel at his office will not answer two basic questions of the Catholic Faith. Their Vicar Generals, Catechetical Office and Office of Communications will not respond to these two questions.

If they answered those two questions then the Archbishop’s position on a traditional Vatican Council II would be the same as the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX). They would be supporting the SSPX by saying Vatican Council II is a traditional document with traditional values on ecclesiology etc.

Similarly a priest of the Archdiocese of Washington is not answering these two questions on his blog.

The Archdiocese of Boston and Washington will not support the SSPX and instead will assume that Vatican Council II is a non traditional, irrational document and with no citations from the Council to support the liberal interpretations of the dioceses of Boston and Washington.

Meanwhile the Vatican Curia will also not say that Vatican Council II is a traditional document but instead will claim, irrationally, that we know the dead-saved (LG 16) and the dead-saved (LG 16) contradict Ad Gentes 7 (all need Catholic Faith) . So Vatican Council II is contradictory irrational document and the SSPX has to accept this version for canonical status.

Similarly religious communities and thousands of priests who offer Mass in the vernacular accept this irregular situation. They do not protest with the Vatican that we do not know the dead; there is no visible dead. There are no known contradictions to the dogma and there is no change in church ecclesiology. The Catholic Church still teaches exclusive ecclesiocentrism, through Vatican Council II. So traditional values on other religions, ecumenism etc have not changed.

Superiors of religious communities and hundreds of bishops should say that there is no visible dead and so they support the SSPX‘s interpretation of Vatican Council II according to their communique, which is rational and traditional

-Lionel Andrades

__________________________________________________